Re: Why isn't Java support part of Postgresql core?

[Rob Sargent <robjsargent@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/15/2014 11:49 AM, cowwoc wrote:

Hi Pavel,

On 15/09/2014 1:40 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:

The main drivers are:

1. Not having to learn yet another language. I find the expressiveness and readability of the other scripting languages very clunky compared to Java.

PLpgSQL is different, it is based on Ada language

I'm sure it's a very lovely language, but it is yet another language most people are not familiar with and will have to learn.

1. Ease of porting triggers across databases. The only thing that really changes across databases is how triggers interact with input/output parameters. The main body remains the same (thanks to JDBC). This is quasi portability in the sense that the underlying SQL is itself quasi portable, but I find it a much more compelling approach than having to rewrite the triggers for each database type.

any time plpgsql will be faster then Java probably due a type compatibility with Postgres and execution as inprocess

There is a few task, that can be done in database, that will be faster in PL/Java than PL/pgSQL

I think developers choosing this route (myself included) are willing to pay the price in exchange for improved readability/maintainability (the assumption being that the resulting performance will be "good enough"). There seem to be plenty of people heading in this direction otherwise other languages (like pl/v8) wouldn't enjoy the popularity they do.

Gili

I've seen too many good java developers write too much terrible database-oriented code.  If they are good with db and sql, plpgsql will not be a problem to learn.